Date: Apr 4, 2013 3:01 PM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On Apr 4, 8:22 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 4 Apr., 19:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > On Apr 4, 6:43 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>

> > > On 4 Apr., 18:21, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > > > On Apr 4, 5:19 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>

> > > > > On 4 Apr., 16:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > There is no need to say what numbers belong to mathematics - in

> > > > > mathematics. There is no need to say what paths belong to the Binary

> > > > > Tree

>

> > > > However, you keep talking about two types of paths,

>

> > > Not at all. I talk about sets of nodes that are in the Binary Tree.

>

> > Indeed, and some of these subsets of nodes are paths and

> > some are not.

>

> In the Binary Tree there is no stop at any path.

>

> > You talk about subsets of nodes with a last node

> > and subsets of nodes without a last node. However,

> > you refuse outright to indicate what makes a subset of nodes

> > a path (certainly not all subsets of nodes are paths).

>

> All nodes that belong to a finite path, belong to an infinite path

> too.

Since you refuse to say what makes a subset of nodes a path

you cannot claim that a path without a last node exists.